Think Different; Solutions are to be found in the nature of the Human Animal itself

Living easy, living free
Season ticket on a one-way ride
Asking nothing, leave me be
Taking everything in my stride

No stop signs, speed limit
Nobody’s gonna slow me down
Like a wheel, gonna spin it
Nobody’s gonna mess me ’round

First consider watching this 10 minute video of Piers Moron making a Morgan of himself in an interview with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, who has the temerity to…

According to Pratt, the best way to protect people from mass shootings is to make sure more guns are allowed in more places. “Gun-free zones are like magnets for the monsters in our society,” [said] Pratt.

Sounds a lot like what I’ve been saying here and here, and today was the first I’ve ever heard of Pratt or the GOA.

Note the moronic (are you a selective moron?) emphasis on “gun crime” and not, “all cause mortality,” i.e. all homicide. Get it?

Now, let’s segue to another potentially dangerous weapon that millions of people are left to get by with on their own on a daily basis: the automobile. We as a society permit this sort of dangerous and risky behavior, one that kills far more people than the anthropomorphic gun does in its wildest dreams.

So what if I proposed that to make traffic safer in the general, we eliminate virtually all traffic signs, directions, rules, stop signs, stop lights? In comments on a post today, a commenter actually jokingly attributed my more guns in more places position exactly to that.

Well, guess what? It’s been done. Not only has it been done, but it’s been a marvelous success in reducing and even sometimes eliminating fatalities, injuries and property damage on previously notorious intersections (Google it).

Enter Hans Monderman.

Hans Monderman (19 November 1945 – 7 January 2008)[1][3] was a Dutch road traffic engineer and innovator. He was recognized for radically challenging criteria used to evaluate engineering solutions for street design. His work compelled transportation planners and highway engineers to look afresh at the way people and technology relate to each other.[4]

His most famous design approach is Shared Space, also known as designing for negotiation or Shared Streets. Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings, signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts.[5]

Here is a very fine essay / article by Tom Vanderbilt that delves into Han’s philosophical underpinnings as well: The Traffic Guru. I’ll excerpt the relevant part.

In the last few years, however, one traffic engineer did achieve a measure of global celebrity, known, if not exactly by name, then by his ideas. His name was Hans Monderman. The idea that made Monderman, who died of cancer in January at the age of 62, most famous is that traditional traffic safety infrastructure—warning signs, traffic lights, metal railings, curbs, painted lines, speed bumps, and so on—is not only often unnecessary, but can endanger those it is meant to protect.

As I drove with Monderman through the northern Dutch province of Friesland several years ago, he repeatedly pointed out offending traffic signs. “Do you really think that no one would perceive there is a bridge over there?” he might ask, about a sign warning that a bridge was ahead. “Why explain it?” He would follow with a characteristic maxim: “When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots.” Eventually he drove me to Makkinga, a small village at whose entrance stood a single sign. It welcomed visitors, noted a 30 kilometer-per-hour speed limit, then added: “Free of Traffic Signs.” This was Monderman humor at its finest: a traffic sign announcing the absence of traffic signs.

Monderman wasn’t an obvious candidate to become a traffic revolutionary. Born in the small Friesland village of Leeuwarden, son of a headmaster, he worked as a civil engineer, building roads, then as an accident investigator, examining how crashes happen. But he was an unusually fluid thinker. Over lunch during my visit, he excitedly told me that he had been reading about the theory that delta societies tend to foster innovation because of their necessary flexibility in dealing with potentially changing landscapes. He saw a parallel with the low-lying Netherlands. “I think the Dutch are selected for that quality—looking for changes—by the landscape.”

And Monderman certainly changed the landscape in the provincial city of Drachten, with the project that, in 2001, made his name. At the town center, in a crowded four-way intersection called the Laweiplein, Monderman removed not only the traffic lights but virtually every other traffic control. Instead of a space cluttered with poles, lights, “traffic islands,” and restrictive arrows, Monderman installed a radical kind of roundabout (a “squareabout,” in his words, because it really seemed more a town square than a traditional roundabout), marked only by a raised circle of grass in the middle, several fountains, and some very discreet indicators of the direction of traffic, which were required by law.

As I watched the intricate social ballet that occurred as cars and bikes slowed to enter the circle (pedestrians were meant to cross at crosswalks placed a bit before the intersection), Monderman performed a favorite trick. He walked, backward and with eyes closed, into the Laweiplein. The traffic made its way around him. No one honked, he wasn’t struck. Instead of a binary, mechanistic process—stop, go—the movement of traffic and pedestrians in the circle felt human and organic.

A year after the change, the results of this “extreme makeover” were striking: Not only had congestion decreased in the intersection—buses spent less time waiting to get through, for example—but there were half as many accidents, even though total car traffic was up by a third. Students from a local engineering college who studied the intersection reported that both drivers and, unusually, cyclists were using signals—of the electronic or hand variety—more often. They also found, in surveys, that residents, despite the measurable increase in safety, perceived the place to be more dangerous. This was music to Monderman’s ears. If they had not felt less secure, he said, he “would have changed it immediately.”

Ah, music to my ears: “If they had not felt less secure…” Remind you of anything, like: The Evolutionary Deterrence of the Unknown? …And so we come full traffic circle.

I could approach this from a number of angles. One such angle, however, has already been in motion for the 8 Parts & counting of my Anarchy Begins at Home Series. That is, just because you feel safe & secure by having a host of officials making your decisions for you, creating layers of rules & regulations on rules & regulations, doesn’t mean you are; and the unintended consequences are always going to be greater. Always.

The other tack is that you only feel safe and secure because you’re a lazy-ass animal and someone’s doing your work for you. You have stop signs, stop lights, a plethora of signs and road rules, so you can drive blissfully, feeling safe, but provably less safe. Or, you have gun control and a system of professional protectors that almost always get there in minutes to do your lazy-ass job for you—but too often, when seconds count.

You’re welcome to argue that both traffic regulations and delegation of all forceful defense  is “safe enough.” But that is your personal decision to make. Don’t argue that it’s actually the safest, because it’s not, and don’t argue that I and others must go along with it because it’s good enough for you. It’s not good enough for me, and many others. 

I’m on the highway to hell

Nobody gets out alive. Just make sure that you get to go to hell in your own go-cart!

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. roland on December 20, 2012 at 00:20

    I’m an avid reader of your blog (and love it!!), first time poster.
    Being probably typically European that whole discussion strikes me as odd. Tear me to pieces now if you wish, but there are many things we do not understand about American lines of thoughts.
    On one hand you are appealing to the responsibility of gun owners and you are trying to defend your right to defend yourself. On the other hand you (even we) try to prevent countries like Iran, North Korea, etc. to “defend” themselves – as they put it. Because they are evil? Agreed! Disarm the evil. But who is there to judge what’s evil?
    The goodies? Who are they? The goverment? Ha, ha..! Which one? The one with the bigger guns?

    • Joshua on December 20, 2012 at 06:19

      Roland – I’m actually not a big fan of forcefully disarming Iran et al. In fact, I think the best thing we could do in those cases is allow maximum free trade of non-weapons technology.

      If Iran attacks us, then we should destroy them. What we’re doing now is like setting fire to our neighbor’s house first because we’re afraid he’s going to set fire to ours.

    • Rob K on December 20, 2012 at 08:04

      “What we’re doing now is like setting fire to our neighbor’s house first because we’re afraid he’s going to set fire to ours.”

      I don’t think this is quite accurate. I think it’s more like preventing our neighbor from buying gas and kerosene because he keeps bragging to his children about how mighty he is and how he’s going to burn down our house. Still, maybe not the best course of action.

      The Art of War 8:11. The art of war teaches us to rely not on the
      likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness
      to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking,
      but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.


    • Richard Nikoley on December 20, 2012 at 07:01

      Agreed. Trade sanctions are the dumbest, most counter-productive idea ever. Imagine where Cuba might be today if we had enthusiastically bought everything they could produce.

    • Contemplationist on December 20, 2012 at 08:44

      The people on this forum are less likely to be warmongering chickenhawks. It isn’t very accurate of you to conflate us with the general ‘American’ attitude, which is now nothing but safe-at-home warmongering, pussified complaining, suing the pants off everyone, etc etc.

      I say leave Iran in peace, let it and Israel negotiate their own problems. Recall all US troops back to the homeland, disband the DoD (its not a constitutional body), did you know the Army had to be MOBILIZED for WW1 and 2? There was no Department of ‘Defense’.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 20, 2012 at 09:07

      +1 Contemplationist

    • Joseph on December 20, 2012 at 13:04


  2. Joseph on December 19, 2012 at 18:56

    Great post.

  3. Richard Nikoley on December 19, 2012 at 20:02

    I’ll quote a comment that just now came in on the last thread.

    It’s very likely that I am the only person here who has ever experienced a real threat on their life. I have a much clearer understanding of the responsibility of protecting your children 24/7 than most of you ever will. It’s simply not possible to be with them 24/7. It’s ridiculously unhealthy to attempt it at any rate, you have to “arm your kids” with self sufficiency… self reliance… knowledge… then trust them and trust yourself that you’ve done the best you can to ensure their safety.

    One day the parole board will loose the animal that will once again hunt us. The ridiculous calls for banning this or that come from people who have never had a bigger threat than getting bumped from their manicure appointments. Let them live their lives knowing they are hunted, HUNTED, not by some random mythical boogeyman, but a real life predator whose sole driving force it to kill them.

    Your choices are a) sit in a corner sucking your thumb or b) get some skills and learn to protect yourself using the most reliable and efficient means available. I was never a “gun person” I was just indifferent to it. I cried the first time at the firing range. I fell into the arms of my instructor and cried because hurting someone isn’t at all in my nature. Gradually, I grasped the concept that I couldn’t use words, or throw magic fairy dust of prayers at the predator.

    I have cried harder than anyone over the school shooting incident at Sandy Hook. If those sweet, loving teachers were armed, they could have prevented the carnage. What the “survivors” are experiencing is an unspeakable horror that is a permanently imprinted part of them now. The perpetuation of their ‘victimhood’ by the media and do-gooders is disgusting beyond belief.

    So called “counselors” will drill them with platitudes that “I understand” “It’s ok to feel sacred” “The bad person is gone” “you’re safe now”…. UTTER Bullshit. Reporters follow them around. Reporters want their friends, family and neighbors to give the next ratings boosting sound bite. They will be terrified for months at every waking moment and sleep will come only at the point of physical exhaustion. Meanwhile, they will be drilled by every available “professional” in the finer points of fear and perpetual victimhood. No one will tell then to stand up and overcome it. No one will say, move past this horror. Oh, and friends and family will be scared too. The pervasive feelings of helplessness will be reflected in the faces of EVERYONE.

    The whole world is cheerleading for these people to be poster people for VICTIMHOOD. It is morally repugnant to me as a a victim-turned-survivor-turned warrior (and productive member of society).

  4. Kyle Bennett on December 19, 2012 at 21:50

    Interesting that you brought up the hazardous effect of masking hazards (the Dutch street signs). I wrote this the other day, and it seems on point here:

    “There are always those who reject the superior methods of civilized people, either habitually or in moments of stress and heightened emotion. When they are allowed to forget the consequences, to lose sight of *why* civilization is superior and what the only possible alternative to it is, they are more likely to make a tragic choice. “

    • Richard Nikoley on December 19, 2012 at 22:39

      Ha, I wonder how many people will unpack that quote properly and who will think it’s a dig (provided they comprehend in the first place). Good job, man.

    • Joshua on December 20, 2012 at 06:14

      Indeed. Actions have consequences, and shielding people from the least of these consequences leaves them unprepared for the worst of the consequences. Unfortunately nobody is ever able to shield the worst consequences.

    • LadySadie1 on December 20, 2012 at 07:21

      Joshua +1

  5. Paul on December 19, 2012 at 23:59

    Aaand, much less texting, eating, calling, reading, drinking, and/or masturbating while driving. People would, you know, have to actually pay attention to the fucking road.

  6. Shelley on December 20, 2012 at 04:16

    “Nobody gets out alive. Just make sure that you get to go to hell in your own go-cart!”

    It’s amazing how many people so freely give up their own go-cart for a false security blanket (mainly the government). In hand with that, to what Kyle was saying, how many people do not trust in themselves and so freely trust those in “authority.” I am watching a nephew go through some serious mental issues, and all of my pleading to change the diet, add fish oil, etc., change the gaming, get him outside in the “wild” just walking, canoeing; change some friends, etc., falls on deaf ears because the parents so freely turn him over to a psychiatrist who is super-quick to super-medicate. Very, very sad.

    We have turned into a society of quick-fixes – no thought process on how to change things naturally.

    Hopefully, this is just an ebb in the flow and it will come back around.

  7. rob on December 20, 2012 at 05:07

    Feminization of society results in attempts to eliminate all perceived risk and conflict.

    “You could poke somebody’s eye out!”
    “You might offend someone!”

    Eventually harsh language and sharp sticks will be outlawed. Parents will be required to outfit their children in full body armor.

    Yesterday I saw some neighborhood kids playing smear the queer on some grass adjacent to the road, I was amazed the authorities hadn’t been notified, somebody could have gotten hurt.

    • Shelley on December 20, 2012 at 05:27

      since the shooting, police have been stationed at all our schools. This morning as I dropped my youngest off, I was chastised for allowing him to unbuckle right after we pulled into the parking lot as opposed to after I fully stopped to let him out. Brother….

      My son also pulled out an old bullet casing yesterday that they had put on a chain and wear sometimes – I had to be sure to tell him to just put that far, far away for right now. I most certainly would be called into the school office or maybe even police headquarters for that one.

      And smear the queer – we’re showing our age with knowing that terminology!

    • Joshua on December 20, 2012 at 06:30

      Is that really feminization? I would argue it is not. I’m not being PC here. I really like feminine things – feminine bodies, feminine women, etc. Femininity is an aphrodisiac to me. If I was a woman, I like to think I would be outraged that the word “feminist” had been so sadly co-opted by statists and cowards.

      What you’re talking about is different. It’s repulsive.

      I’m not sure why people call it feminization. I think of it as cowardice. There are far too many cowards today, and their solution for their cowardice is to use government force to attempt to bring others down to their level.

    • rob on December 20, 2012 at 08:29

      I think the attempt to eliminate all risk is feminization because women are naturally drawn to security and men are naturally drawn to risk, a man who is adverse to risk is never going to get laid.

      Maybe I should refer to it as the emasculation of society.

      Whatever you call it the attempt to eliminate risk from life never works out because you are chasing an illusion, life is inherently risky and maturation is learning how to access and weigh the risks, not attempting to avoid them entirely.

      I think it is particularly important to allow young males to fuck up every now and then, if you try to shield them from risk they never become men.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 20, 2012 at 09:00

      I’ve seen the word “pussification” tossed around here & there, so there’s another option for you.

    • Joshua on December 20, 2012 at 10:38

      I like emasculation.

      I’m not trying to regulate anybody’s usage. I am just hesitant to use a gender based word when it only pulls from the negative stereotypes for that gender. I think women are being harmed just as bad by the emasculation of our society as men are. In the long run at least.

    • rob on December 20, 2012 at 13:32

      I don’t think there is anything negative about women in general being drawn to offers of security, due to natural selection it is the only possible result given that women give birth and tend to play a greater role in rearing very young humans. The survival of the mother is of considerably greater importance than the survival of the father in terms of ensuring that the genes survive.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 20, 2012 at 14:09

      I agree rob and in the H-G division of labor it’s what we are so suited to. The woman tames the man in the social sphere. As it should be. Over the years, I have learned to listen to my wife more than myself whenever in a social setting and i even take her advice often in how I run this blog (she’s always wanting me to tone it down, a bit, but not total castration, if you get the metaphor).

      But like I always say, that just does not scale to the proportions of democracy we see today.

  8. bill on December 20, 2012 at 06:26

    I need to buy a m32 grenade launcher in order to stay a step ahead of the rabble. Do you know where I can purchase the ammo. It’s getting harder and harder to protect your family these days.

  9. blahblah on December 20, 2012 at 06:32

    A couple more daisy cutters and I’ll be set. Bring it.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 20, 2012 at 07:33

      Your bigger problem is going to be the C-130 and crew you’ll need to deliver it.

    • LadySadie1 on December 20, 2012 at 07:42

      That’s the great thing about you, Richard, always helping people see the big picture!

  10. Doug McGuff, MD on December 20, 2012 at 07:45


    A few years ago the family and I went to a Seattle Seahawks game with some dear friends. When the game was over 75,000 fans spilled into the streets (at least half were intoxicated, but polite). We walked 2 blocks to a parking garage and left from the 4th floor. There were NO provisions made for traffic….no cops, no signs, no detours…nothing! We got out of there easily and were across town seated in a restaurant 45 minutes later.

    Contrast that with football games at my local university. At these events it seems that 95% of the State Trooper man-force is mobilized to direct pedestrians from the stadium to their car, out of the parking lot, and onto massively re-routed streets with explicit signage (not to mention the ridiculous secret-service like activity of protecting the coaches). The Trooper presence extends for a 10-20 mile radius, all the way to the closest interstate. The result: good luck making it out of the parking lot in an hour, onto a secondary road in another 1-1.5 hours and another hour to the highway.

    Spontaneous organization rules!

    • Richard Nikoley on December 20, 2012 at 08:59


      Yea, whenever I see cops out directing traffic in various forms, I almost always get the same impression: this is all about THEM. I’ve even seen intersections where the lights have gone out, people are doing just fine negotiating their way with one-another, then a cop gets there, starts “directing” traffic and you’ve suddenly got traffic backed up for blocks in all 4 directions.

      Half the roundabouts and traffic circles in the world are in France, and I love them–especially the ones on the highways that are the equivalent of our state routes. I’ve also driven in some of the largest, most congested ones in Paris and Rome. Love it. Once you get used to them they are absolutely the way to go. Hell, in some, such as the Arc de Triomphe (largest in the world, I believe), you have 10 or more avenues converging in a single intersection and people manage all by theirs widdle selves.

      People think it’s crazy, but that’s because they don’t like to think different. They want to think just like everyone else, so that they get their daily dose of confirmation bias. Me? I like being right, when every other mutherfucker in the world is wrong. Rules and regulations and laws and restrictions and limits and so on, dictated from above and by authorities are NEVER the way to go. Ever. It is only a transaction whereby the aura of authority, safety, and security, importance are traded away for less real safety and security, individually managed.

      Or, as the point the post made, people are trading away real safety for less safety so that they can sit on their lazy asses and not have to worry about seeing to their own protection.

    • LadySadie1 on December 20, 2012 at 09:23

      At 3:30 everyday, over 400 folks leave two factories at the same time. There is one stoplight in the whole town, and it’s no where near our production facilities. We do just fine “all by [ours] widdle selves”…

      “Or, as the point the post made, people are trading away real safety for less safety so that they can sit on their lazy asses and not have to worry about seeing to their own protection.”

      Yes, but in defense of the sheep who are trading away their safety, as I stated, “The whole world is cheerleading for these people to be poster people [icons] for VICTIMHOOD.” People in a state of trained, er, *learned* helplessness simply can’t make reasonable decisions like standing up for themselves. They are incapable of taking personal responsibility. Oh, and I am not excusing them, I wish their ‘safety nets’ would all disappear. It might be entertaining to watch the herd thin itself out.

  11. LadySadie1 on December 20, 2012 at 07:49
  12. Rob K on December 20, 2012 at 07:52

    I’ve been saying it for a long time. The anti-gun crowd don’t car if you get murdered, as long as a gun isn’t used to do it. They think it much better for you to be victimized than for you to ever use a gun.

    • LadySadie1 on December 20, 2012 at 08:06

      Exactly. But it’s more than guns. It’s the constant nanny state, constant control, incessantly provoking fear and then rewarding the fearful. Once the population is trained to constantly live in fear, it’s quite easy to convince them that the next new boogeyman is real, and that it is in their best interests to obey yet another set of stupid laws, regulations, rules, etc. without question. Feminization (as rob called it) or cowardice (Joshua’s term) or whatever a person chooses to call it – it’s all very counterproductive and serves no one but those who wish to be our masters.

  13. neal matheson on December 20, 2012 at 23:20
    “Xinhua News Agency that Min was possibly ‘mentally ill'” Possibly?

    Similar blade weapon attacks happened in Japan when I lived there and in the UK.

    Friends of my wife who live in London were burgled, they were told when they phoned the police to barricade themselves in their room and that the police would be there in the morning. The police station is not far from their house.
    My advice was to tell the police that you were going to go and shoot them, which is also the advice I have given my wife. Things have changed somewhat with several home defences recently, some fatal and some involving shotguns but until the law is changed I will assume that any home defence will land me in hot water, I don’t want to bank on my future being determined by political fashion.
    I come from a background of martial arts and have rolled my eyes at more than a few seminars for women’s self defence. The best thing a woman can do is to get a guy in a safe environment to actually go at her with full force and determination. This will amply demonstrate that the only sure defence for a woman is a handgun.

    • neal matheson on December 20, 2012 at 23:35

      To follow up (I have a lot to say about defending one’s self) men and women who are going to use some form of hand to hand defence should get a newspaper or piece of foam lagging, or marker pen. Then get a someone to practice attacking you with it. This is a great way of disabusing yourself of knife defences. I did this with a friend of mine a lot and he actually stopped teaching knife defence seminars because he felt that it was dishonest and led to a grossly out of place sense of confidence. Criminals don’t fight they attack, no level of force is unreasonable in this light and if you live in a Country enlightened enough to allow you to defend yourself properly take that right and use it.

  14. neal matheson on December 20, 2012 at 23:24

    Have there been any mass shootings that were stopped by on-duty police?

    • Amy H. on December 21, 2012 at 02:49

      You never hear about mass-shootings being stopped by anyone, for obvious reasons.

    • neal matheson on December 21, 2012 at 07:06

      Very good, I meant like the examples Josef gave above.

    • rob on December 21, 2012 at 11:39

      Columbine High School had an armed security person on-site, don’t know if technically he was a cop.

  15. Contemplationist on December 20, 2012 at 08:50

    Goddamn Richard

    I was just about to post this little vignette later today and you took away that pleasure! I’ve read and own Tom Vanderbilt’s book ‘Traffic’ which is fantastic for such a mundane topic btw and has an endorsement from Nassim Taleb (for those who care). I first read about the great Mr. Monderman back in 2007 from some random googling. People like him make life worth living.

  16. josef on December 20, 2012 at 09:52

    At the Portland shooting, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

    It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

    — Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

    — Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

    — Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

    — Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

    — Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

    — Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

    By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

    All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed

  17. Andrew Ryan on December 20, 2012 at 12:07

    A responsible gun owners strength is not in steel and fire, that is what the Parasites will never understand. No, that strength was forged through their own will, through their own determination to see their family, their dearest of friends protected should ruffians come knocking. Most important of all, the individual has taken responsibility for his own well-being, for his own survival – responsibility…this above all is the true measure of a man.

    So tell me this, when the season of the hoodlum should inevitably strike, as it does so swiftly and unpredictably, which side of the barrel would you like to be on?

    There is a season for all things: a time to live, and a time to die. A time to defend, and a time…to kill!

    • Amy H. on December 20, 2012 at 13:12

      It’s not the method that matters. It is the will, and the will to defend by any means and at all costs. The evolution of weaponry might make certain means and ends more efficient by measure, but erasing the weapons will never erase the root cause of evil or the desire to defend against it.

  18. Amy H. on December 20, 2012 at 12:44

    Richard, I know you are not generally a fan of Vox Day but I gather you read his blog at least semi-regularly. One of his posts today excerpted an article from Market-Ticker about the ethics of the right to self-defense. As usual, most of the Dread Ilk’s commentary was illuminating (for me, at least).

    In sum: IF you believe your life is special and IF you believe you have the inalienable right to life, then you have a moral responsibility to defend it. When the gov’t and elite give up their armed protection, then the rest of us might see fit to give up ours (but I don’t see that as likely).

    Also, a young sibling of one of the Sandy Hook victims wrote a letter about how only police and the military ought to have guns…the indoctrination, it starts early.

  19. rob on December 20, 2012 at 15:12

    The problems with “no guns” is that female humans tend to be much smaller than male humans. So you have the problem of women or girls going mano-a-mano with someone who is much stronger than the women or girls, and out weighs them by 100 pounds.

    So accept that men can do whatever they want with you, or acquire some kind of weapon to even the odds.

    That weapon is a gun.

    • ladysadie1 on December 20, 2012 at 15:40

      rob, amen! Please don’t take away my “equalizer”!

    • Marnee on December 20, 2012 at 15:55

      Krav Maga helps a lot. All women & mean should practice close combat martial arts.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 20, 2012 at 16:59

  20. […] Posts RSS ← Think Different; Solutions are to be found in the nature of the Human Animal itself […]

  21. […] I've previously blogged about the late, great, heroic Hans Monderman. […]

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k